I love how the e-communist always cheers for MASSIVE third world immigration into WHITE COUNTRIES and ONLY white countries. The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve their demographic problems by bringing in millions of third worlders and "assimilating" with them. The fruits (or horrors) of mass immigration are reserved for EUROPEAN countries and European countries ONLY.
And yes, America is a European country, it was founded by Europeans and was not intended to be a refugee camp for low IQ third worlders.

I wish there would be more diversity within the debate!
Most people seem not to be aware of the grave consequences that go along with the highly flawed US immigration policy. It is a mistake to ignore that a great part of US entrepreneurial spirit stems for initiatives started by immigrants. TMallon mentioned this in his comment. As matter of fact, more than half of all Silicon Valley enterprises have been initiated by immigrants. Denying those people the possibility to stay and work in our country is a threat to the prosperity of this country! I'm in line with Mr. Wadhwa, when he says that our current immigration laws are killing innovation. He shared far more insights in this interview: http://www.fairobserver.com/article/why-america-losing-race-entrepreneur... He is making quite some insightful points!

Vanessa argues that our immigration policy should be based on self-interest. Why allow the people we provide expensive training to stay here and work? Not to do them a favor, but to allow them help grow our economy.

Now let's extend the same reasonable logic to the 12M illegal immigrants who have entered our country, and compete with Americans for a all too limited number of jobs at the bottom of the economic ladder. Will adding even more workers to that level, already carrying the brunt of the unemployment burden, help the economy?

When reforms are demanded in immigration policy of USA government, generally thinking is that USA can manage with much less number of immigrants than it now allows. But an impartial and unbiased study is required to establish that the country can really manage to achieve economic growth rate of say more than five percent in the coming decade if immigration curbs are put in place as demanded by the reformists,
The argument is that unemployment in the country is a worrying factor and additional number of immigrants would further aggravate the unemployment situation. This is a sound argument but if the American economy has to grow, it needs to find ways to absorb immigrants from abroad as these immigrants would come to the rescue after a decade or so when the number of old people( 65 plus) will increase further in the country. Hence the solution lies in providing jobs to as many as possible from amongst the existing unemployed and at the same time to look for opportunities to accommodate the young immigrants from other countries.

Sounds like just another rationalization to justify immigration. The US has no obligation to "accommodate" anyone. It has a duty to act in the interests of its own citizens. Look to your own homeland to look out for the best interests of its citizens. The US, should only permit immigration when it is is a matter of self interest.

Just let them all in. It is the simplest, cheapest solution and will cause a massive economic boom. It spreads American values and freedoms. There is no downside.

To those people worried about a massive influx from Mexico, I have this to say: IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED AND WILL CONTINUE. As regards immigrants from other countries, only those with means and drive will come, exactly the kinds of people that the USA needs.

I differ with you. America has more than enough uneducated, unskilled people, as evidenced by the disproportionate unemployment in this class. Adding even more people to this group will further harm their economic situation.

The arguments you make are invariably made by people who are not in that class and who will not suffer directly from additional people added to their number. Perhaps you may even be a beneficiary from the impact illegals have on wages for carpenters, cooks, meat packers, hotel workers,..

A lot of people here seem to think there is a set number of `jobs` and that having more people means less employment. Clearly, that is not the case; a larger workforce grows the economy which increases employment opportunities, so the mere presence of immigrants does not put anyone `out of a job`. This is called the lump of labor fallacy, and many of you should read up on it before posting foolishness to this thread.

You need to base you assertions on data, rather than wishful thinking, TMallon. Our country has seen a continual loss in job opportunities over a long period of time. The total fraction of our work force with full time jobs is lower than it has been for 20 years. The work force has grown faster than the jobs have become available, and today a significant fraction of the total workforce is defined as "unemployable", reducing unemployment rates.

Allowing unskilled workers to enter the country impacts both jobs and wages for Americans in a similar situation, as has been demonstrated over and over. It undoubtedly has had no impact on you, but it has significantly harmed your poorer neighbor who has a lower paying job than you do. Your uninformed assertions to the contrary are of no help to them whatsoever, even though they may give you some comfort.

Even if the realities you describe are true, you can't show they stem from immigration—because they don't. Did you actually go read up on the lump of labor fallacy, or did you just reject my argument out of hand because you don't like what it says? A good example of the point I'm making is the agricultural industry (migrant fruit pickers); having lots of cheap labor increases profits, which lets firms expand, which creates more jobs at every level of the income spectrum. Moreover, food is cheaper so all americans have more money to spend, which increases growth in other parts of the economy. Cheaper food is especially beneficial for those at the bottom of the income spectrum. Now this isn't a case for unlimited immigration, but it is a case for immigration when it fills a gap in the market.

I made no argument that the decline in job availability is necessary caused by illegal labor, in general. However, the availability of tile setters willing to work for $10-20/hr does impact availability of jobs for Americans who need more than that to support a family. We get cheaper tile setters (who send half of their earnings back to their families in Mexico) and Americans on relief.

The labor cost associated with picking fruit makes up only a small fraction of the cost of fruit. Most is in distribution and spoilage. Doubling the wages of fruit pickers would have almost no effect of the cost of food to Americans.

Are you familiar with Cesar Chavez, and his efforts to protect the interests of American fruit pickers? He formed a union devoted to that cause, set up boycotts of growers who used imported scab labor, informed on illegals and their employers to the border patrol, and even used violence to force farmers to stop using illegals. Well-known liberals of the time marched with Chavez and supported his efforts. Today they honor Cesar Chavez Day and do everything possible to overturn his efforts.

If there is a REAL shortage of engineers, fruit pickers or nurses, we should be able to let foreigners immigrate here legally to fill that need.

So if you believe the general decline of job availability is not due to illegal labor, then we can leave that point.
But let's take the case of tile setters. In terms of the tile stetting industry, in the extreme short term, there will be tile setters put out of work by illegal immigrants willing to work for lower wages. But that will increase the purchasing power of the rest of the economy, and other sorts of jobs will be created. The case you're making is extremely anti-free trade, and terribly protectionist. We should just stifle any creative destruction then (the essence of capitalism), because in the short term people will lose jobs. Taking that plan of action, we'd still be making shoes in our houses and trading them for bushels of hay down at the local market. My point is, in the extreme short term, within extremely narrow sectors of the economy, illegal immigration creates some employment. But taking even a moderately larger picture over even a slightly less short-term time frame, it creates benefits.
But far more importantly, there's a population dividend from immigration. Without immigrants from Central and South America, birth rates in the US would be comparable to Europe. In that situation it would be impossible to support retiring baby-boomers because there wouldn't be enough productive agents in the economy. If you want an example of how having a large productive workforce fuels and economy, that is exactly the demographic factor that has allowed China to grow so quickly for two-decades, and a lack of such a workforce is precisely the reason why Japan has stagnated for so long, crushed under an aging population that isn't having any children.

That being said, I respect the your desire to protect society's poor; I just don't think protectionism is a great way to do it. I'd rather use the benefits we get from open markets to build better schools or something.

How are there going to be better schools when the burden of educating - often meaning warehousing - the children of illegal migrants is bankrupting local governments? The flaw in your theory is it fails to account for the fact that low-skilled migrants, even "hard-working" ones, are a net drain on government. That's the idea behind the welfare state - low income people get more in government services than they pay in taxes. Far from a free market with benefits, this works out to a costly subsidy for those who employ them. Legalization is a disaster because it will mean full, unfettered access to the welfare state, and that will make it harder, not easier, for our children to meet the already staggering burdens we've placed on them - Social Security, Medicare, immense university tuition, immense student loans, crumbling infrastructure, greenhouse emissions, military adventurism, and a staggering national debt. Their burden will only increase because these migrants will use the franchise to keep the goodies coming. This is great for Democrats and good for Republicans getting contributions from Big Ag but it's lousy for America's future generations who cannot vote and so are invisible to politicians. If we want to make it easier on our children, we have to get rid of low-income illegal migrants and admit educated, productive ones in their place. You cannot add up a series of losses to show a profit.

You're vastly overestimating the amount of money the government actually spends on the illegal poor in the status quo, or on the poor generally. Vastly overestimating. American schools aren't failing because there's brown kids in class. American schools are failing because we spend less than 2% of GDP on education, and most of the 2% is spend in rich districts with large tax incomes where immigrants can't afford to live.
Besides that, about the only other government service illegals get is emergency room healthcare, a cost the government covers regardless of whether or not they're citizens.

I prefer to pay an extra 25 cents for a hamburger and an extra dollar a night for a hotel room and ignore your respect.

Better school haven't been built by spending more money so far. Why will squeezing money out of a hotel worker's wage make any difference? It will likely go to increasing the salaries of overpaid administrators anyway.

Oh, no I'm not. 3 kids x 13 years x $9,000 per year - that's low - is $351,000. If they go to college, state subsidy - not tuition, subsidy - at U Cal is $23,000 per student per year x 3 kids x 4 years = $276,000. Grants from financial aid extra. Medical care averages $7,500 per person per year. A $2,000 subsidy per person per year x 15 years x 5 people = $150,000. Like education, medical care isn't covered if they're not in the country. So that's $777,000 so far. IF none of the children has special needs. Add garden-variety public services like roads, police, and the zillions of other things all levels of government provides. If you work 80 hours per week (2 x 40 h/wk, or 1 x 10 h/wk no overtime), at $10 per hour 50 weeks each year, in 15 years you will earn $600,000. If you pay 20% tax at all levels, you pay $120,000. Net loss: well over $657,000 over 15 years. Times, say, 1 million families = 5 million immigrants (again, low), BEFORE sponsored relatives arrive. $657 billion. Minimum. If it's 7 million and they sponsor 3 million more, that'll be $1.2 trillion, medical and education only. MUCH more if any go on disability, food stamps, subsidized housing, or any other relief, or get involved in crime and wind up incarcerated. After that, their children might pay their way. However, if the next generation doesn't go to college - if they only thing they learn in "school" is how to curse out their teachers in Spanish - the drain on taxpayers will be permanent.

One additional point. You cannot say were are paying for their education in any event, so it doesn't cost anything if they're legalized. We've been told all along we can't deport these people because they're absolutely essential for the American economy, since Americans won't do those jobs. The moment they're legalized they become "Americans" from a labor point of view. That means, as a matter of economic necessity, we will have to import enough exploitable labor to replace them. That means we will have to pay the full cost of their net government consumption.

I think you just made up a bunch of numbers and then said it was big.
See, the reason why we educate people is because we get social and economic benefits from having a productive workforce. In your own analysis these "illegal" kids are going to university. That means they're a good investment, and productive agents. We don't educate people out of charity, you know. We educate them because theta's the way we get entrepreneurs and other kinds of smart people who grow the economic pie. On that topic, do you have any idea the proportion of successful American entrepreneurs who are the children of immigrants? I'll give you a hint: it's pretty large.
Also, I don't see why people would stop being fruit pickers just because they're "American" now. Isn't your whole point that there are Americans who can do those jobs? If there aren't, then your entire case is void because those immigrants are filling a true gap in the market. If you still don't really believe me, despite the fact that I'll just refer you again to the "lump of labor fallacy," I'm a PhD student in economics who is taking a break from contracting a model about labor economics to post on this forum about labor economics.

The social costs of educating a child of citizen parents differ from those of educating a foreign child, because you can choose not to admit the foreign family but cannot expel the citizens. That means you bear the cost of not educating the citizen child but don't bear those costs for the noncitizen child (unless you choose to). You equivocated away this difference so your claim that they're just as good an investment doesn't follow. That's why you're underestimating the costs here (I think).

How much the foreign parents contribute to the public coffers in the early years makes a big difference. If they contribute nothing, or are net takers, you lose a boatload.

I'm not sure whether saying anything further would be productive. You've thrown out my figures and gone on to appeal to authority, so I think we're down to just throwing claims in each other's face. We'll just have to differ.

You make many unsupported assertions that are supposed to provide comfort to others that are harmed by the policies you support. Where is any evidence that these policies will have the effects you claim they will? All we see is the harm they cause (not to you, for certain).

Let's take the argument that letting foreigners immigrate here will solve some hypothetical problem with a shortage of "productive agents in the economy". Is there any evidence that we have such a problem? Or is it just a figment of your creative imagination? We have an ever growing population of workforce age people in this country. Is the fraction of that workforce who are fully employed steadily increasing, suggesting an imminent shortage of workers to fill the jobs we have? No, it is doing quite the opposite. The fraction of our workforce with full time jobs is DECREASING.

Come back with your sales pitch for uncontrolled immigration, TMallon, when those numbers turn around and return to employment levels we saw ten years ago. Then we can talk about a rational plan to expand that workforce through immigration. And by "rational" I mean that the priorities are set by the interests of America as a whole, and not by the narrow interests of MacDonald's owners, or by Harry Reid and the Vegas hotel owners, who also own him.

Jesus, you still haven't gone and read up on the lump of labor fallacy, even after I asked you to like seven times.

Your entire case is pinned on the assumption that having more immigrants decreases the number of available jobs and available resources.

But adding a bunch of productive agents to the economy doesn't decrease employment, in the same way that making everyone work part-time won't increase employment.

Now, are immigrants productive? Yes, there has clearly been demand for migrant labor, and migrant labor clearly obeys the laws of supply and demand. That's why net migration has fallen practically to zero, because the demand has dried up. If there's demand, by definition it's filling a need in the economy the economy cannot fill locally, which is by definition productive. Now that they're no longer productive, they're not immigrating, so no harm no foul.

Finally, the reasons for a declining workforce are many and varied, and don't really have anything to do with immigrants. Manufacturing left America. We went through a depression. Computers are doing lawyers' jobs now. Whatever. You can't just say "THINGS ARE BAD" and then say "IMMIGRANTS" and have that amount to a case when the underlying economics of it are terribly faulty.

I define a problem - unskilled workers are forced out of work by importation of workers that will work at wages that are considered poverty wages. You apparently accept this, but claim that it is a local problem and is unimportant compared to broader issues.

Where is this shortage of "productive agents" that you propose immigration will solve? The fraction of the workforce that has no full time jobs is INCREASING, not decreasing. You yourself admit that the employed fraction of the workforce is declining (the reason is irrelevant). The issue is: How will bringing in even more workers fix a problem that you claim is important, but does not exist? We do not need to bring additional workers here from other countries when we already have an excess number here. If we do have local shortages (i.e., engineers) then we can deal with those specific problems with targeted programs.

There is no problem that can be solved by a general increase in immigration. They are creations of your imagination, and contradicted by reality.

Share with us your real agenda, TMallow. Obviously it has nothing to do with these fictitious scenarios that you have made up to justify your support of unimpeded immigration.

This so-called reform is like signing your own death warrant, albeit a slow and painful death of the America we used to know. "Diversity is strength" is nothing but a fantasy. I visited DC last year. It was unrecognizable from just ten years ago. Drunken Latinos were loitering everywhere and they couldn't give me directions in English. Welcome to United States of Latin America!

I have no idea where you could possibly have visited, but after living over a decade in DC and seeing its evolution first-hand, I can say that it has much improved, and there are far fewer homeless venturing around downtown. Clearly a major bias plays into your view of DC, and drunken people can be visible in every major metropolitan region. It would be beneficial for this country if you and many other closed-minded citizens of this amazing nation would just outright quit it with the rampant bigotry.

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of people are avidly attentive to every word that springs from the lips of President Barack Obama on the immigration debate. They wait patiently throughout Mexico, South America, Europe, The Caribbean Islands, China and from one horizon to the other, for this administration and the GOP minority party to vote on a new immigration policy. It could easily be Déjà-Vu all over again, a simulation of the 1986 Ron Reagan, Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act. (IRCA) when the estimated interior 3 million illegal aliens, escalated into somewhere around 6 million? The borders were suddenly inundated with people, and additionally a sudden surge in airline flights with parties of families come into America under false pretenses of just visiting. The outcome was huge amounts of deceptive papers that indicated the people had been living here illegally for years, but could now apply for citizenship. That in itself was one issue, but the promise of the deceased Ted Kennedy and the rest of the bunch that such laws as holding businesses liable for hiring illegal aliens was never fully enforced, or other restrictions. Please—if nothing else, assure the American people that every illegal alien is fully processed; no short cuts and proof positive that they were here before the enactment of a new law. Not the carnival of errors as before, letting millions more to slip past immigration safeguards. Even thirty years ago the laws were ignored as the business community held thrall over the political parties, with donations to campaign contributions, travel and other favors.

So here we stand today with the potential of another blanket amnesty, and very little hindrance to the people who are going to cross deserts, or the airports as fake tourists. Most reports say that more one way arrivals enter America this way as visa overstays, then those who sweep through either the Northern or Southern border with the intention to squat here? Taxpayers who pay the bills, for illegal aliens can expect illegal entries to rise if Obama collects enough votes to pass another amnesty. My thought it is so unfair to people who enter this country through proper channels; many hundreds of thousands sitting and waiting many years for a visa. The 19th century immigrants came here expecting nothing but hard work, but the illegal immigrant’s today press politicians for civil rights, entitlements and a pass to citizenship. By any other name these are criminals, who are stealing legally money from citizens and legal residents.

Right now the only chance we have to place legal obstacles in the way of illegal aliens, and insist that most of the Democrats and some Republicans (Not TEA PARTY lawmakers) that federal and state politicians serve the general public by honoring their oaths to protect us from enemies--Domestic and Foreign--by enacting the “LEGAL WORKFORCE BILL., Its purpose is to detect illegal working aliens and replacing them with some of the 24 million Americans remaining jobless or using temporary work, as part of the (LWB) is E-verify that is being updated constantly and soon will have access to Drivers Licenses Agencies to cross-reference and authenticate workers. The most contentious law that must be applied is an amendment to the 14th Amendment, which existed for the end of slavery, to uphold citizenship for future black descendants. However it has been perverted from its original intent, giving citizenship to children smuggled into the United States. A simple, easy and correct amendment would stop this immigration travesty, by only allowing the children of parents, who already has citizenship.

Involved is hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayers money swallowed up by foreign nationals, once the baby holds an American birth certificate and hence a passport. It becomes a fulcrum for the illegal Mother to stay here, to accumulate citizenship welfare for the baby, followed by the rest of the family circle. Mexico has closed this loophole and most European countries, while Canada and the United States still have a guarantee for citizenship for the pregnant unconcealed or those smuggled through our porous borders. For anybody who comes to America should be a criminal felony and not a civil slap on the wrist. ONLY THE RAISED VOICES OF THE TEA PARTY AND THE LEGAL POPULATION OF THE U.S. CAN ULTIMATELY GET THESE PARAMOUNT LAWS PASSED AND SAVING THE DESPICABLE COSTS EXTRACTED FROM US EVERY APRIL?

The agriculture industry obviously needs Guest Workers, but it must be a uniform program that the farmers pay all those benefits, including a fair wage, not stick the unsuspecting public with the bill. That at the end of their contract, the Agjob labor must leave and then apply for a new job. I doubt anybody will disagree that those persons with exemplary professional skills, such as the STEM workers should be expedited through the system, as businesses are forever calling out for these people. Our government should enforce the laws to halt the desperate from other countries, as these people are not our problem, but our own homeless, and destitute are, especially the elderly who seem to be completely neglected.

It's morally wrong to reward illegal migration, and even more wrong to reward it with citizenship. It is especially wrong, and corrupt, to do so in order to use their votes to illegitimately win elections. Sadly, this article is little more than an endorsement that politicians just that.

It is interesting to compare what is happening in Europe at the same time. Europe is slamming its doors back on the toes of incoming immigrants of almost all kinds, due not the least to nativist pressure, since neo nazis and other far right wing parties are increasing their share in each elections since the onset of the economic crisis. That may have to do with the religious composition of Europe´s back-yard. Most of Europe´s neighbours are muslims and the current racist torrent in Europe sometimes claims not to be racist, but only against muslims. Those of that mindset fiercely maintain, that hating muslims has nothing to do with racism or xenophobia, since it is only a religion they hate, not a race. I believe by the same token, one might say, that the nazis of the third reich were not racists, since their antisemitism was only directe against a religious denomination (jews) and not race (although gypsies had their share of concentration camps´inturnies).

While not US specific, people from Afghanistan form one of the world's great conflict diasporas. I wonder how the US's actions in Afghanistan as well as its changing immigration policies will impact the Afghan migrant community. A great article on the topic can be found here: http://www.statt.net/tag/neutrino/

Given the US govt's perpetual failure to enforce immigration laws, any promise they make about securing the border or deporting those here illegally is no more than disingenuous double-speak. And their amnesty for the 11 million will only accomplish two things: First it will prove what fools all those who followed proceure and protocol were. And secondly it will unleash a subsequent tidal wave of illegals who know it's now just a waiting game till they too receive "fair treatment".

Those of you who support "immigration reform" here are uniformly those who are not impacted by the influx of large numbers of poor, uneducated people. You are NOT at the bottom of the economic ladder and do not have to compete with illegal immigrants for your jobs or the services that the government provides you. Your children do not go to schools that are burdened with large numbers of students that need extra attention because of their status and language limitations. You can afford to be empathetic to the difficulties of the world's poor. Your less fortunate neighbors (a large fraction are American of color) are paying your bill for you. Perhaps you even benefit from the reduced prices that result from the economic pressures on your neighbors.

Why is it best for "America", Doug? I know many working class Americans (one a Hispanic) who have been directly impacted by cheap illegal labor. They would see it differently, but perhaps you can explain to them why their loss is best for for the rest of us.

Because the labor is available anywhere and many jobs will go where the labor is along with the management jobs that go with them. Because the price reductions from globalizations are good for rich and poor alike. Because we have demographic problems that will hurt older and younger Americans without immigration. And because it is better for America and Americans to brace for more competition than to try to use the limited capacity of government to prevent competition.
I used to compete directly with cheap illegal labor too, and I was glad to have such hard-working coworkers. I didn't mind working as hard or taking the wages the work would bring. And when I got tired of heroic output and trifling pay, I put together a college application in my mid-20s. A lot of my friends only have diplomas but have worked long and hard enough in one field that they do ok. The defense against immigration isn't hiring a bunch of immigration police, or punishing companies that hire the way most of us shop, but for everyone to remember that their skills and willingness to work are what they will be paid for, not their nationality.

The solution is to enforce existing laws, which require immigrants to enter the country legally. I know many legal immigrants, who have come here for the very reasons you identify. There is a well-defined process for them to obtain jobs (at prevailing wages) and to work toward citizenship. You propose to bypass this process. Why? To satisfy political expediency.

Your assumption is probably wrong. First off, immigration clearly increases the net income of current residents, and although that hides differences, an average increase of income is difficult to overcome. If the additional supply of labor was in a very specific category that would be a plausible reason why that specific category would suffer a decrease in wages, like if all immigrants were electricians that would be pretty clearly bad for electricians. But "unskilled" is so broad that it's difficult to see that relative decline outweighing the overall increase. Also, immigrants aren't that unskilled. First off, because many of them are, in fact quite educated, and also because even those that aren't that educated aren't therefore "unskilled". Immigrants are far more likely to start a business, for example, rather than those born here, and the process of actually picking up and moving to a foreign country is a demonstration of determination, drive, and financial acumen, which makes them competitors with the most successful. Also, immigrants come with various specific skills that are different than those already here, rich or poor. They create new products, like foreign food, or the ability to translate foreign languages, etc. In fact, one of the drivers of immigration is skills imbalance. So, for example, a lot of nurses move here because we have a shortage of nurses, same with rocket scientists, fruit pickers, concert pianists, and baseball players. Areas with skills shortages have inflated wages, so immigration is a force for equalization.
-Perhaps you even benefit from the reduced prices that result from the economic pressures on your neighbors.
-
Everyone benefits from the reduced prices, immigration causes an increase in real wages across the board, I haven't seen anything to suggest that it affects inferior goods less. I would have guessed that, like trade, it benefits those more. Also, immigrants do, in fact, consume things, which is why they, like everyone else, works. You make money to spend money, and that means more jobs in all the areas they spend money on.
-
Then there's working government into the equation. The one good reason I can think to not let someone into the country is if they receive more state benefits than they pay in taxes, that's the only person I'd keep out. But remember, government spending isn't all variable costs, there's plenty of fixed costs like defense. More people here doesn't make our borders longer, so its just more people to split the bill with. That means either less burden on people paying taxes, or that tax money can be spent on other things (like poor people).

The solution is to enforce existing laws, which require immigrants to enter the country legally
-
No, our current laws make it illegal to enter the country. The waiting list for some visas from Mexico is 100+ years. I am more than willing to say that people can only enter the country legally, as long as it is at least possible for them to enter the country legally.
-You propose to bypass this process. Why? To satisfy political expediency.
-
No, because our current policy is inhumane, economically idiotic, and makes the United States economically and militarily weaker.

Because.... Because.... Because.... And because....
.
Couldn't have been better said. And: The defense against immigration isn't hiring a bunch of immigration police, or punishing companies that hire the way most of us shop, but for everyone to remember that their skills and willingness to work are what they will be paid for, not their nationality.
.
For many low-wage menial job immigrant workers, they are not in a postion to put together a college application at any point for the rest of their lives. Language is primarily an obstacle. They fully realize this, and so they work doubly hard in order to enable their children to do what they can't . And many of their children do exactly that. They apply the impeccable work ethic their parents model to their own education. Many become high-skilled professionals, fully acculturated, fully integrated into mainstream American society.
.
Elsewhere another commenter observed it takes merely 3 generations for that full acculturation to take place. Actually, that number is getting smaller as each new wave of immigrants culturally mature. I think for the last couple of decades the number has been dwindling to 1. The son of one janitor in a hospital where I worked is now freswhman in Yale on a full scholarship.
.
Willingness to work for pitiful wages. That is the first rung on the ladder of survival ANYWHERE, whatever the political system. God forbid, if I were a panhandler, I would stand on the corner of the street 12 hours a day versus 6 because the first would at least in theory double my take-home "pay". Who, I truly wonder, are the people who think in a paradigm of "entitlement", who believe that if they don't want to do the work, no one else can either??

I have no issue with immigration, skilled or unskilled. However, immigration policy has to protect American workers, skilled or unskilled. A rational policy would require 1) employers demonstrate an unfulfilled need for workers, 2) that employees would be paid fair wages and 3) employers would commit to long term employment, or a controlled temporary work permit.

Those American workers are the groups you propose to screw with your open door policy.

Your assertion that cheap illegal labor "clearly" increases the net income of residents is nothing more than a baseless claim, made by somebody with no knowledge of the problems that illegal workers make for Americans.

Illegals who are hired to work in the meat packing industry reduced average wages from $17/hr to $10/hr. Illegals working in the construction industry have seen a similar impact.

A large fraction of illegals come here only to work, and send a significant fraction of their income back to their own countries. Billions of dollars make up Mexico's third largest source of foreign revenue, exceeded only by oil and drugs. That money is lost to our own economy.

Not EVERYONE benefits. You and I benefit. Working class Americans are paying for those benefits with lower wage.

Legal immigrants, filling labor shortages of nurses, engineers or fruit pickers, are welcome. I have worked with, for, and for me many such LEGAL immigrants. I have personally been involved in the process to bring legal immigrants to this country. It is ILLEGAL immigration that bypasses this process that I oppose. Nurses, fruit pickers and engineers would object to your characterization of their wages as being "inflated.

I don't propose to bypass the process, I propose to expand it. Instead of the geniuses in congress and the brainiacs in the administration trying to figure out who we need and how many, I'd like to see immigration simplified to the point that the labor market figures it out.

Your assertion that cheap illegal labor "clearly" increases the net income of residents is nothing more than a baseless claim, made by somebody with no knowledge of the problems that illegal workers make for Americans.
-
No dude, it's the Theory of Comparative Advantage. Immigrants and current residents are two non-identical economies, and can therefore trade to mutual advantage.
-That's like saying cars screw buggy whip makers. Yes, it does. How long do you want to hold society back in the name of protecting workers?
-
RR is exactly right, the effect is the same as an increase in technology.

That kind of willful ignorance is just unbelievable. You made an assertion about the effect on the economy, which is just clearly incorrect. And Ricardo's Theory is actually famous for being the only thing in the social sciences that is true and useful.
-scabs
-
Do not ever use hate speech on these forums again.

Unions do hold society back if they either extract more than mere economic profits from employers (e.g., high "fair" wages) or restrict the supply of labor (e.g., mandatory long-term contracts or "controlled" temporary permits like you recommend). But this is all economics which you don't believe in which begs the question; WTF are you doing commenting on this website?

Automation of the workforce is continuing and eventually most of the lesser-skinned and/or physical labor will be replaced by machines. Would you by then support banning machines in the name of "making sure that American workers are paid fairly?"

No. Just banning the importation of cheap scab labor to replace American workers when we have high unemployment, especially in the ranks of the unskilled workers. They ADD to an unskilled work force that will eventually be replaced by machines, further increasing the total number of unemployed Americans. If we are going to import workers, let's import those who have NEEDED skills, not those with no skills.

That seems to me a reasonable approach to immigration and I wonder what agenda those who oppose this approach really have.

But nobody is actually advocating importing unskilled workers. There happens to be 12 million or so illegals in the USA and the choice is between spending absurd amount of resources to deport them, keeping them illegal and therefore allowing them to work for less than minimum wage and thus make minimum wage Americans less competitive, or making them a productive part of the population by offering them a way to education.
Using e-verify for all work, including temporary work such as paying someone to mow your lawn, shoving your driveway of snow, or clean your house, would also require a very costly build-up of infrastructure to make the e-verify system available to everyone.

let's import those who have NEEDED skills, not those with no skills.
-
If you had bothered to look up what I was telling you, you wouldn't have made this obvious fallacy. You're saying that these workers don't have an absolute advantage, but that's immaterial (and also largely untrue as I was saying before). All that two people, or groups of people, need to trade to the advantage of both is comparative advantage. Even if one person is worse at everything than another, or really has no skills, as long as he is better at some things than others in a different ratio than someone else, they can trade to mutual advantage by specializing in what they have a comparative advantage in. So either someone is identical in skills, or they are needed, and you are wrong. As Chief Rabbi Sacks put it, "It is through trade that difference becomes a blessing, not a curse".
-
What makes someone a citizen in the true meaning of that word, however, isn't their education, or their wealth, or even where they were born. It is rather the desire for the freedom to take care of himself, and his family, asking not for privileges to set himself above another, but only the opportunity to make his own way while respecting that same right of others. It is also the patriotism to support his country, and the willingness to contribute to both it's wealth, power, and freedom, all of which are a function of population!. To be an American isn't a privilege, it is an endeavor, an endeavor at which you have failed.

Not true, it is not easy to obtain a permanent residency! The process is tedious, expensive for employers, and takes 5-10 years even though the employer thinks your skills are needed. The process stops if there is a minimally qualified US citizen for the job.

Permanent residency status is a process, which takes place WHILE the immigrant is living and working in the US. Once the process has begun, the employee maintains his status, unless he loses his job. The existence of a "minimally" qualified alternative somewhere has no bearing on the process. That is a falsehood.

My personal experience with dealing with the Green Card process is that it takes about two years to obtain a green card. The timing you refer to is for citizenship.

The basic issue being discussed is whether this trade you advocate is of benefit to both parties. If you run a meat packing plant or a MacDonald's stand and wish to lower your labor cost then you see the trade as to your advantage. But this trade is overseen by federal law and has to be demonstrated to be to the advantage of the US as a whole.

What advantage is there to allow an influx of uneducated, unskilled workers to the US when we already have a large number of uneducated, unskilled workers that are unemployed? If we look at the TOTAL percentage of unemployed workers in the US (not just those counted by the Labor Dept (those unemployed and still looking for a job) the percentage is at a 30 year high and has gone steadily downward for four years. A disproportionate fraction of the unemployed are unskilled workers. You want to add to that problem? Why? I know for certain that it will have no impact on your economic status - that is a problem for people much poorer than you to bear.

You can define a word in any way that fits your needs. The word "citizen" has a legal definition. I'll stick with the legal definition, thank you.

GENETIC DISEASE OF THE LIBERAL-DEMOCRATS, MORE SPENDING, MORE TAXES AND EVEN MORE TAXES?

Everybody can have a say in this illegal immigration controversy, by calling their federal and state representatives? President Obama is determined to give people who have no respect for our laws, a path to citizenship; even low key criminals. Zero-in on your politicians and demand they vote for passage of Texas Republican Lamar Smith “(The Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 2885)” to remove unauthorized workers from nationwide business by implementing mandated E-Verify. Both businesses and the American people overwhelmingly support E-Verify. Nearly 360,000 American employers voluntarily use E-Verify and over 2,700 new businesses sign up every week. The program quickly confirms 99.5% of work-eligible employees. It's free, fast, and easy to use. With 23 million Americans unemployed or underemployed and unknown millions of illegal immigrants working in the U.S., now is the time to increase E-Verify. Then we MUST demand passage of the “Birthright Citizenship bill (Rep. Steve King, R-IA; H.R.140)”, which will collapse the intentional smuggling of the illegal unborn into the United States to collect hundreds of billions of dollars in entitlements from taxpayers by parents. Plus the parents have figured how to scam the child tax credit of $4 to 7 Billion dollars without paying anything, and the IRS ignoring this disgraceful theft. Way above the original figure of $113 Billion dollars is being extracted at state level, with many welfare programs that don’t exist for Americans and legal residents. The welfare state is flourishing for illegal aliens, freeloaders from many different countries and we get the bill?

Called “anchor babies,” the children of illegal immigrants born/ smuggled into the United States cannot actually prevent deportation of their parents. It is not until they attain the age of 21 that the children are able to file paperwork to sponsor their parents (CHAIN MIGRATION) for legal immigration status. The cost is unbridled for the U.S. taxpayer who is charged with the free education, health care and low income shelter and cash payments. The parents remain illegally exposed until that point and deportable. A well regulated Guest Labor force could be provided for agriculture, but not permanent residency. Plus the STEM program for technical professionals who wish to immigrate, but not unlimited numbers? The impoverished should not apply, as America has millions of its own under privileged. All the facts, the shocking costs to federal and mainly states welfare benefits, which the Liberal Progressives press, does not wish to be known at NumbersUSA website.

Are we about to lose our rights, our guns to protect our families and a government influenced by the 7.billion annual cost for the United Nations; and the second illegal alien AMNESTY? The cost for this negative immigration application as reported by the Heritage Foundation ($ TWO TRILLION DOLLARS PLUS) for processing, retirement and pensions out of your taxes.

Open borders made a lot of sense 200 years ago. We had 2,379,964,800 acres of land and very few people.
Now we have over 300,000,000 people living in the United States.
So what is the long term plan? Do we keep the borders open until we hit 1 billion like India? 1.5 billion like China? Or do we bypass them both and shoot for 2 billion citizens? Standing room only. We better start cutting down our forrest and building condos on our national parks in order to make room.

The US population is expected to decline without immigration. People are choosing to live more independent lives rather than starting families, and the cost of having kids is going up faster than inflation and wages which makes having kids an economic barrier for some people. This when combined with the fact that more people are living longer and retirement age remaining flat creates a demographically economic problem that Europe and East Asia will face in the coming decades.
Also the "open door policy" advocated by some is to bring the best and brightest from abroad into the US, and not to just take anyone in. The educational and ability to contribute to the economy barrier for legal immigration in the US is quite high.

If the US had 2 billion people, it would still be less densely populated than Germany. I think closed borders is one of those things humans will look back on in a few hundred years and think, "What were they thinking?"

I mean have you ever been to America? I mean America. There's nothing there! There's corn. And then there's corn. And then after a couple hours... MORE EFFING CORN!!! No people, only corn.
-
Have you ever noticed that people in this country have chosen to live next to other people. You can see because our population is agglomerated into cities, not evenly distributed. It's because while people say they want space, other things like jobs, and therefore money, or things to do come from other people.

There are almost 60 replies here and all but 1 or 2 of them focus entirely on the political calculations of changing immigration law. It is a perfect example of why we produce such self-destructive policies and end up in an unrecognizable country.

I am a son of the revolution and a son of the confederacy, and I support open borders. Our people all came here from somewhere, in a way that would today have us labeled illegals. If there is one american indian posting in here I will eat my laptop.

We accept people who have the gumption and desire to leave their homes and families and come to America, and make them citizens. That is how we became the greatest and most powerful nation in history. Whether it is good for your party's prospects in the next election is irrelevant. Immigration is the foundation of America since before the Constitution was written. If you don't like it, move to France, or wherever your ancestors came from.

Your argument is flawed and incorrect. Actions that occurred 100 or 200 years ago should not be used for a basis of allowing those actions to continue today and into the future. The world is very different than what it was 100 years ago. Just because an action occurred allowing undocumented peoples to come to the United States does not make it right. There are millions of people who wish to become American citizens or try to work legally in America and are denied. Why do you think these people are denied? Why does the US government have rules on immigration?

Most who immigrate to the US are poor with little job skills. America has enough poor people for now. Large numbers of people who are poor, have low job skills, and do not understand American culture does create more challenges and problems for the USA.

You know what, I like people. I like rich people, I like poor people, I think people are good. I like alot of things about America, but I think the thing I like the most is the people. I think there should be more of them. I think the people here are the reason that this is the greatest country on Earth, and I think that's true of poor people and of rich people. I don't think people are better Americans because they have more money. I wish poor people weren't poor, but I don't wish they weren't at all. All good eggs in my book.
-
PS- I don't understand American Culture either :). Lady GaGa?

If there is one american indian posting in here I will eat my laptop.
-
Guys, we have got to find a native american right now. Is Inuit okay, I do know one Inuit, maybe I'll get him to set up an account.

We constantly deride politicians for playing the game rather than trying to implement good policy. Therefore it behoves us to lift our eyes from that game and look at the bigger picture - if enough people look in one direction the politicians will follow.

I remember how well it worked for the republicans the last time they gave amnesty to the illegal immigrants in America back in 1986 - we got enforcement at the border and hispanics all started voting Republican. Oh wait...

Reagan didn't just support amnesty. He campaigned in 1980 on open borders. McCain and Bush II supported amnesty. Yet they all lost the Hispanic vote. And because the GOP was amnesty-friendly back then, Democrats actually staked out a much more moderate position than they do today attempting to attract anti-amnesty working-class whites. If the GOP supported amnesty today, they might get a larger share of the Hispanic vote but would you vote Republican if immigration was the only issue you agreed with them on?

Immo is the one issue that Reps could use to capture Hispo-voters, if they do it right, and be part of a multi-ethnic majority for a long time.
.
In a rather different way, Immo is the one issue that could unite Whites into a voting bloc (like all other ethnicities vote) and re-create a 'Pure White' majority - for a while.
.
Choices, choices.

The problem with your plan is that most white voters, including most white GOP voters, are not looking to "re-create a pure white majority." Sure there are some racists left in the US, but for most people it's about policy and not race.

"Give the party to the Hispanics" seems like an exaggeration. Hispanic voters only account for 10-11% of all votes in 2012, and will rise slowly from there. They will still account for far fewer votes than white voters in any foreseeable future.
Of course 10%+ of your population should have a voice in government. The GOP would be stupid, especially since Hispanics agree with the GOP on many fundamental issues, to ignore that 10%.

Share may rise much faster if immo laws are loosened and citizenship accelerated - both must be part of any deal for it to be attractive enough to win Hispos over to Reps IMO.
.
The Latinos hold the balance of power, so long as Whites split their votes more-or-less evenly - Whites may as well not even bother to vote - they cancel each other out. Latinos decide the outcome - that's POWER.

I can also argue that white independent voters consisting of 15% of the electorate were the ones who decided the election in 2012.
More importantly there is really no way to alienate all minorities and then capture enough white voters to make up for that loss. People who want to "recreate a pure white majority" already vote GOP, so there's nothing to gain.

No doubt about it - Reps will have to sell the idea to Whites just like they must to Latinos, though the arguments will need to be tailored for each audience. But what are unhappy Whites to do - vote Dem? Maybe - if Dems become the anti-Immo party, which Blacks and Labor would be perfectly happy to see. Stranger things .... Latinos' big strength is their reliable bloc-voting - 70:30 for one party. Whites can't match that.